Lane Departure Road Safety Audit for
Chicopee and Carver Street in Granby,
Massachusetts
Prepared by
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
and
University of Massachusetts Traffic Safety Research Program
Prepared for
Massachusetts Highway Department
Federal Highway Administration
1.0 Introduction to Road Safety Audits & Lane Departure Crashes in Massachusetts
The Federal Highway Administration defines a Road Safety Audit (RSA) as the formal safety
examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team.
The purpose of an RSA is to identify potential safety issues and possible opportunities for safety
improvements considering all roadway users. Specific objectives of an RSA include, but are not
limited to the following:
•
•
Minimizing the risk and severity of road crashes that may be affected by the existing or future
roadway at a specific location or nearby network;
Improving the awareness of safe design practices which are likely to result in safety benefits
based upon potential safety concerns.
Although RSA’s have been employed in other countries for some time, they are being fully embraced
across the United States as a low cost opportunity to make significant safety improvements at any
number of stages ranging from project development and planning through existing operation.
Furthermore, RSA’s have proven to be effective on projects of all shapes and sizes. The RSA program
here in the Commonwealth presents a unique and exciting opportunity for improvements in roadway
safety.
The RSA program in Massachusetts is being implemented in accordance with the Commonwealth’s
role as a lead state in preventing run-off the road (lane departure) crashes and in conjunction with the
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Lane departure crashes are a notable problem area for
Massachusetts, especially for crashes with higher injury severities. Between 2002 and 2004, lane
departure crashes accounted for nearly 20 percent of all crashes in Massachusetts and approximately
one-quarter of crashes involving an incapacitating injury. Almost one-half of fatal crashes between
2002 and 2004 were lane departure crashes. As the crash severity increases, so too does the percent of
lane departure crashes as shown in Figure 1.
All Massachusetts Crashes,
2002-2004
Massachusetts Incapacitating
Injury Crashes, 2002-2004
18.7%
Lane Departure Crashes
Massachusetts Fatal Crashes, 20022004
24.5%
46.2%
Other Crashes
Figure 1. Relationship Between Lane Departure Crashes and Injury Severity
In an effort to combat the lane departure problem, a strategy was developed for the SHSP to identify
hot spot lane departure locations, perform road safety audits and implement low-cost comprehensive
countermeasures. The following report summarizes the findings of a RSA focused on lane departure
crashes (LD) along Carver/Chicopee Street in Granby, MA.
Page 2
2.0 Background Material for Chicopee/Carver Street in Granby
Granby is a Massachusetts municipality with approximately 6,000
residents and is located within Hampshire County in the western portion
of the state. Route 202 is a major east-west roadway through Granby.
One roadway that intersects Route 202 is Chicopee Street. Heading
southerly from Route 202, Chicopee Street continues for approximately 3
miles before it ends at the intersection with Carver Street. It is worth
noting that the movement from Chicopee Street to Carver Street is a
typical through movement with a stop-controlled third approach (Carver
Street) being stop-controlled. Carver Street continues for ½ mile beyond
Chicopee Street to the intersection of Taylor Street. Carver Street and
Chicopee Street are town-owned, two-lane bidirectional, primarily
residential roadways that provide access to several subdivisions. This
stretch of Carver Street and Chicopee Street has 12 foot travel lanes with a
limited 1 foot shoulder. Although the terrain is relatively level, there are
two major horizontal curves along this stretch of roadway. Typical crosssections for both Carver and Chicopee Street are shown in Figure 2. Some Figure 2. Typical Roadway
of the major characteristics, including crash clusters, for Carver and Cross-Section
Chicopee Streets are summarized in Figure 3.
The LD-RSA for Carver Street and Chicopee Street was held on June 12, 2007 at the Granby Highway
Garage, and focused on a mile long stretch beginning at Taylor Street. In total, 23 team members
participated in the road safety audit as listed in Table 1. As indicated in Table 1 representatives were
present from Federal, State, Regional and Local agencies and included a cross-section of
engineering/planning, education, and enforcement expertise.
Table 1 Participating Audit Team Members
Audit Team
Members
Agency/Affiliation
Bonnie Polin
Neil Boudreau
Ashley Hobbs
Carrie Lavalee
Thomas Broderick
Massachusetts Highway Department –
Safety Section
Massachusetts Highway Department –
Traffic Engineering
Massachusetts Highway Department –
Traffic Engineering
Massachusetts Highway Department –
Highway Design
Massachusetts Highway Department –
Safety Section
Audit Team
Members
David Desrosiers
Agency/Affiliation
Granby Highway Department
Kevin O’Grady
Granby Police
Russ Anderson
Granby Fire
Nancy Sedlak
Granby Carver Street Resident
Mark Holubowich
Granby Carver Street Resident
Cindy DemaisHolubowich
Granby Carver Street Resident
Tim White
Federal Highway Administration
Gary Roux
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Michael Knodler
University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Kim Stearns
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Heather Rothenberg
University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Keith Wilson
Franklin Regional Council of
Governments
Arianna Mickee
University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Chris Martin
Granby Selectmen’s Office
Stacy Metzger
University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Deanna Peabody
University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Annette Kumrega
Louis Barry
Trooper, Massachusetts State Police C7
Chief of Police, Granby
Page 3
Towards Route 202
Approach from
Chicopee St. – north
Pushpins
My Pushpins
Cluster of crashes around
horizontal curve
Approach from
Carver Street stop
sign
Park with ball fields
End of Carver Street. 3way stop controlled
Tangent stretch of road
where farm vehicles are
regularly present
Intersection of Chicopee &
Carver Streets where Chicopee
Street ends. Carver Street - Stop
controlled WB approach
Figure 3. Characterization of Roadway Features for Carver and Chicopee Streets
Page 4
Because the volumes are relatively low and many team members had not previously visited this stretch
of roadway, audit team members were asked to visit the site in advance of the meeting to familiarize
themselves with the roadway attributes and characteristics. Copies of the meeting agenda and
instructions as well as a packet of pertinent information were distributed to meeting invitees prior to
the meeting (this information is included in Appendix A of this report). Specifically, the additional
information provided was pertinent to the LD-RSA safety initiative and included traffic volumes and
speeds as well as a description of relevant crashes as summarized below:
•
•
•
An hourly distribution of traffic volumes collected by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
along Carver Street between Meadow Glen Drive and Taylor Street. From the compiled data
collection efforts the observed average daily traffic (ADT) was 4,970 (6/4/07) with an
approximately equal directional split (2,480 westbound, and 2,490 eastbound).
Similar to many roadways, the posted speeds vary along Carver Street and Chicopee Street in
Granby. Chicopee Street has segments posted at 30, 35, and 40 mph. The official speed
regulations for Chicopee Street between Route 202 and Carver Street in Granby are
summarized below in Table 2, below.
Between 1/26/03 and 12/1/06 there were 31 reported crashes consistent with the lane departure
initiative of which 26 were able to be geolocated as presented in Figure 4. A complete
summary of the 31 identified crashes over the 3-year period is included in Appendix A and was
provided to participants prior to the audit meeting. Please note that this does not reflect all
crashes along Carver Street and Chicopee Street, but those deemed relevant to this initiative
and in the specific location of concern.
Table 2 Summary of Speed Regulations for Chicopee Street in Granby
Northbound / Eastbound
Southbound / Westbound
Beginning 150 feet east of Taylor Street
Beginning at Route 202 in Granby
0.52 miles
at 30 mph
1.37 miles
at 30 mph
1.40 miles
at 40 mph
0.40 miles
at 35 mph
0.40 miles
at 35 mph
1.40 miles
at 40 mph
1.37 miles
at 30 mph
0.49 miles
at 30 mph
0.06 miles
at 25 mph
Ending at Route 202 in Granby
Ending at Taylor Street
Additional resources made available to the team during the audit meeting included field videos from
several drives along Carver and Chicopee Street, which aided in the discussion of specific roadway
elements. Also available were possible resources including the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety
Plan and the related National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 500 series reports.
Page 5
Figure 4. 3-Year Summary of Chicopee/Carver Street Lane Departure-Related Crashes
3.0 Characterization of Major Traffic Safety Challenges
Following a brief introduction to the RSA process in general, the meeting participants were asked to
summarize and characterize potential safety considerations along Carver Street and Chicopee Street.
The initial characterization of the major safety considerations focused on several key elements:
•
The horizontal curvature alignment along Carver Street had
previously been reported by residents as the cause of a
significant number of crashes, and was the initial topic of
conversation at the meeting. The series of horizontal curves
follows long tangent sections in either direction. Added to this
fact the horizon in each area is relatively open which may
provide motorists with a sense that the roadway continues.
There are warning signs, and in one direction there are chevrons,
however audit team members questioned the placement. In
addition to the myriad of reported crashes at these two locations, Figure 5. Horizontal Curves
residents also indicated that there were also numerous Along Carver Street in Granby
unreported crashes at these locations, which occur all hours of
Page 6
•
•
•
•
the day.
Weather was also discussed as a major factor in approximately 50 percent of the considered
crashes. The most common weather events involved vehicles sliding/losing control due to
roadway conditions, and given the proximity of the adjacent travel lane or roadside resulted in a
lane departure crash.
Speed was also cited as a possible factor in the operational elements of the roadway because it
could be another cause of crashes in the area. As part of the discussion in posted speeds, the
changing roadside environment (residential and undeveloped), and the amount of motorists
exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 10 mph was reviewed. Chief Barry discussed
some of the potential challenges with enforcing Carver Street and Chicopee Street including the
horizontal curves speed limit (i.e. 30 mph) and limited spaces from which to physically
enforce.
Another major characterization of the crashes along Carver Street and Chicopee Street involved
distracted and/or drowsy drivers. Given the constrained cross-section and rapid approach of the
horizontal curvature in either direction there is little room for error. Related to this discussion
was the lack of significant lighting, coupled with the cover provided by trees and shrubs on
Chicopee Street, resulting in limited visibility at times.
Other significant factors mentioned at the outset of the meeting that are discussed in further
detail later in this report also included the following:
⎯ Proximity of utility poles along the roadside;
⎯ Sight distance issues associated with the horizontal curves;
⎯ Drainage issues along curves on Carver Street west of the intersection;
⎯ The presence of children and residents in relation to the roadway; and
⎯ Signs were too short and hard to see.
4.0 Summary of Short Term Recommendations for Chicopee/Carver Street in Granby
The formal review of potential safety concerns along Chicopee Street and Carver Street was completed
by the entire audit team. Following identification of a potential safety issue the dialogue subsequently
focused on possible countermeasures with some preliminary discussion regarding the feasibility of
implementation (timeframe and cost) as well as the potential payoff of safety benefits. Given the
potential for an immediate impact there was an added focus on short term (less than 1 year) and low
cost (less than $10,000) improvements that could be done almost instantaneously resulting in a positive
safety impact. Resulting recommendations for immediate actions along Chicopee and Carver Streets
include the following:
•
•
Assure appropriate location and condition of “Curve Ahead”
warning signs for both horizontal curves in all directions.
Current signage is difficult to see and not reflectorized (see
figure inset). Signs should be placed in advance of the curve
to allow adequate response time from motorists and within
MUTCD regulations. To further enhance the delineation
(given the lack of lighting) roadside reflectors and/or
chevrons should be considered as budget permits.
Given the reported prevalence of speed among the lane Figure 6. Typical Horizontal
departure crashes, it is recommended that Carver Street and Curve Warning Sign
Page 7
•
•
•
Chicopee Street continue to remain a high speed enforcement area. It is also recommended that
speed data collection be completed by the Town of Granby (possibly in cooperation with
PVPC) to track current operating speeds throughout the year. This may also prove useful in the
establishment of enforcement thresholds. Along the same lines, it is recommended that the
speed regulations described in Table 2 are consistent with the current operating practice.
The next time Chicopee Street and Carver Street are scheduled for restriping it is recommended
that the following two items be considered: 1) narrowing of lane widths to 11ft (with 2 ft
shoulders); 2) upgrade to 6 inch width pavement markings for edgelines and centerlines.
Utility poles are in close proximity to the traveled way along Chicopee Street and Carver
Street. While longer term strategies are considered for possible relocation of the most
hazardous poles, it is recommended that the poles be heavily reflectorized to add conspicuity.
Specific locations include the utility pole along the first horizontal curve at the intersection of
Chicopee and Carver Street, but all utility poles along the corridor should be considered.
Continue to maintain level surface along roadside edges. At the time of the audit, several spots
of edge drop-off were observed south and east of the Chicopee Street and Carver Street
intersection, which may in turn accelerate the impacts of lane departure crashes as motorists are
unable to return to the roadway.
5.0 Summary of Additional Chicopee/Carver Street Countermeasures
Although an emphasis was placed upon short term and low cost improvements that could be carried
out immediately, the focus of the team was not limited to solely those countermeasures. The following
section details countermeasures discussed by the team, which are reflective of all costs and timeframes
and includes both general (entire corridor) and specific safety opportunities. Please note that with
respect to the timeframe there are some unknown variables that must be further explored. Additionally,
some of the potential treatments discussed were experimental in nature resulting in an unknown level
of safety benefits. Several definitions exist for low, mid, and high cost as well as for short, mid and
long term implementation timeframes. For purposes of this report, low cost improvements will be
under $10,000, mid costs will be under $50,000, and high costs will be above $50,000. From a
timeframe perspective short term will refer to less than 1 year while mid and long term will refer to
countermeasures that will take 1 to 3, and greater than 3 years, respectively.
Page 8
Potential
Safety Issue
High crash cluster
through horizontal
curve alignment
Speed related
issues along
Chicopee/Carver
Street corridor
Possible Countermeasures
Implementation
Timeframe
Potential Safety
& Cost
Payoff
Install curve ahead warning signs,
chevrons and roadside reflectors for
horizontal curves. For example,
there are currently only chevrons in
a single direction for one curve.
Short Term &
Low/Mid Cost
Developing intersection into a 3way stop intersection. This was
discussed by the team, but may not
be advised unless MUTCD warrants
for stop control are met.
Short Term &
Low Cost
Unknown
Geometric redesign of curves along
the roadway with possible traffic
calming devices.
Long Term &
High Cost
Mid/High
Continue and expand upon a
concentrated
enforcement
and
educational (i.e. speed feedback,
community meetings, etc) effort.
Short Term &
Low/Mid Cost
Mid
Explore
possibilities
for
implementation of established traffic
calming measures. Examples may
include island channelization or a
traffic circle at the intersection.
Mid Term &
Mid Cost
Mid
Photos
Mid
In the SW direction the reduced
speed (30 mph) begins in the center
of the curve. The placement of this
sign and speed zone should be
revisited with MassHighway.
Page 9
Potential
Safety Issue
Possible Countermeasures
Implementation
Timeframe
& Cost
Potential
Safety Payoff
Distracted or
drowsy drivers
Consider rumble strips/stripes along
roadway in the vicinity of the
curves. May not be advisable given
proximity of residences.
Mid Term &
Mid Cost
Mid
Pavement
markings
Upgrade to 6 in and highly reflective
edgelines and centerlines to aid in
roadway delineation. Repair all
current pavement markings that have
faded.
Short Term &
Mid/High Cost
Mid
Cross over the
centerline crashes
resulting from
passing vehicles
Although there are currently short
passing zones, it is recommended
that the Town of Granby remove the
passing zone along Carver Street on
the approach to Taylor Street.
Short Term &
Low Cost
Low
Edge drop-off at
roadside
Maintain and fill roadside as needed
to prevent edge drop-off.
Short Term &
Low Cost
Low
Photos
Page 10
Potential
Safety Issue
Possible Countermeasures
Implementation
Timeframe
& Cost
Potential
Safety Payoff
Reflectorize utility poles, especially
the pole located in the center of the
Chicopee/Carver horizontal curve.
Short Term &
Low Cost
Low
Add guard rails for particularly
hazardous
utility
poles
(see
previous).
Mid Term &
Low/Mid Cost
Low
Work with utility company to
remove utility poles from clear zone.
Long Term &
Mid/High Cost
Mid
Dark stretches of
roadway
Install lighting along dark stretches
of road in the vicinity of the
Chicopee/Carver intersection.
Long Term &
Mid/High Cost
Mid
Sign efficiency
Update worn, clustered, and faded
signs (emphasis on regulatory and
warning), and continually perform
sign maintenance. Specific signs
include the combination of signs
near Taylor St. as well as the slow
children and speed limits signs.
Short Term &
Low Cost
Low
Continued
maintenance
The pavement condition, drainage,
and coverage resulting from brush
are in fair condition, but some
improvements
can
be
made
pavement wise to prevent puddles.
Short Term &
Low Cost
Mid
Presence of utility
poles within the
roadway clear zone
Photos
Page 11
6.0 Discussion
With respect to the safety improvement opportunities described in the previous section it is important
to consider the following: 1) many treatments are both low cost and short term and 2) there is a
complimentary nature of many of the safety strategies in that one improvement will aid with multiple
safety issues. Please note that although this document provides a series of specific recommendations
which warrant short-term implementation, it should be noted that the approach towards improved
safety is dynamic in nature and warrants revisiting over time.
Several additional topics that were discussed at the audit meeting and warrant consideration include the
following:
•
•
•
•
Reconstruction of passing zone along Carver Street. The current passing zone has poor
placement near two horizontal curves. Elimination of these passing zones will eliminate
confusion and reduce some crashes in the area.
Carver Street and Chicopee Street have many large trucks, slow moving farm-tractors,
motorcycles, and even some bicyclists. Warning signs should be placed along these streets to
provide drivers with the ability to react to these mobile devices. Also, a warning sign for glare
may be needed along Chicopee Street. A longer range possibility would be the construction of
sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists using the park facilities. Please note it is
recommended that any sidewalk be located along the north side.
Another possible concern is the frequent property damage occurring to residence, particularly
along the south side of Carver Street. One resident has placed large rocks along the roadside to
prevent vehicles from entering the property. This may result in greater injury severity resulting
from any errant vehicles. Similarly, mailboxes have been replaced frequently; in cooperation
with the post office it may be advisable to move mailboxes to the north side of the roadway.
Another minor safety opportunity is to use “STOP AHEAD” pavement markings on the
approach to Taylor Street. There are already such markings on the stop controlled approach
along Carver Street.
One additional concern that warrants discussion is the general nature of the traffic stream. Specifically,
most drivers using this roadway are commuters that use the same roadway on a daily basis, and there is
some concern that the effect of signage will be minimal. Coupled with this notion is the idea that more
emphasis may be needed on longer-term and higher cost measures; however given the availability of
funds for such activity at the local level there is a need to make decisions based upon previous
experiences and/or research with the intent of implementing a cost-effective measure.
Page 12
7.0 Appendix A: Distributed RSA Meeting Materials
Materials provided to RSA team members in advance of the meeting included the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Agenda
RSA and Lane Departure Introduction
Tabulated Crash Summary
Map of Geolocated Crashes
PVPC Summary of Volumes
PVPC Summary of Speeds
LD-RSA Checklist
Page 13
Road Safety Audit for:
Carver Street / Chicopee Street
Meeting Location: Granby Highway Garage
15 Crescent Street
Granby, MA
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
9:30 AM to 11:30 PM
Type of meeting:
Lane Departure – Road Safety Audit
Attendees:
Invited Participants to Comprise a Multidisciplinary Team
Please bring:
Thoughts and Enthusiasm!!
9:30 AM
Welcome and Introductions
9:45 AM
Introduction to Road Safety Audits and Lane Departure Crashes
10:00 AM
Review of Site Specific Material
• Crash & Volume – provided in advance
• Existing Geometries and Conditions
• Video and Images
10:30 AM
Completion of RSA
• Identification of Safety Concerns – using checklists as a guide
• Identification of Possible Countermeasures
11:30 AM
Adjourn for the Day – but the RSA has not ended
Instructions for Participants:
• Before attending the RSA on June 12th participants are encouraged to drive Carver
Street / Chicopee Street within Granby, MA and complete/consider elements on the
RSA advisory checklist with a focus on safety factors affecting roadway departure
crashes.
• All participants will be actively involved in the process throughout. Participants
are encouraged to come with thoughts and ideas, but are reminded that the
synergy that develops and respect for others’ opinions are key elements to the
success of the overall RSA process.
• After the initial RSA meeting, participants will be asked to comment and respond
to the document materials to assure it is reflective of the RSA completed by the
multidisciplinary team.
Page 14
An Introduction to Road Safety Audits & Lane Departure Crashes in Mass.chusetts
The Federal Highway Administration defines a Road Safety Audit (RSA) as the formal safety
examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team.
The purpose of an RSA is to identify potential safety issues and possible opportunities for safety
improvements considering all roadway users. Specific objectives of an RSA include, but are not
limited to the following:
•
•
Minimize the risk and severity of road crashes that may be affected by the existing or future
roadway at a specific location or nearby network;
Improve the awareness of safe design practices which are likely to result in safety benefits
based upon potential safety concerns.
Although RSA’s have been employed in other countries for some time, they are being fully embraced
across the United States as a low cost opportunity to make significant safety improvements at any
number of stages ranging from project development and planning through existing operation.
Furthermore, RSA’s have proven to be effective on projects of all shapes and sizes. The RSA program
here in the Commonwealth presents a unique and exciting opportunity for improvements in roadway
safety.
The RSA program in Massachusetts is being implemented in accordance with the Commonwealth’s
role as a Lead State in preventing run-off the road (lane departure) crashes and in conjunction with the
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Lane departure crashes are a notable problem area for
Massachusetts, especially for crashes with higher injury severities. Between 2002 and 2004, lane
departure crashes accounted for nearly 20 percent of all crashes in Massachusetts and approximately
one-quarter of crashes involving an incapacitating injury. Almost one-half of fatal crashes between
2002 and 2004 were lane departure crashes. As the crash severity increases, so does the percent of
crashes that are lane departures as shown in the figure below.
All Massachusetts Crashes,
2002-2004
Massachusetts Incapacitating
Injury Crashes, 2002-2004
18.7%
Lane Departure Crashes
Massachusetts Fatal Crashes, 20022004
24.5%
46.2%
Other Crashes
In an effort to combat the lane departure problem, a strategy was developed for the SHSP to identify
hot spot lane departure location, perform road safety audits and implement low-cost comprehensive
countermeasures.
Page 15
CRASH
NO.
1
2
CRASH
DATE
1/26/2003
2/12/2003
CRASH
TIME
1813
1503
MAP
(Y/N)
Y
Y
CRASH LOCATION
22 Carver Street/15 ft S of Carver St
Carver Street/20 ft W of Meadow Glen Dr.
Dir.
W
S
3
12/7/2003
1240
Y
32 Carver Street/100 ft S of Chicopee St
S/N
4
12/28/2003
2324
Y
318 Chicopee Street/1000 ft N of Burke Ln
S
5
1/15/2004
1242
Y
Carver Street/1000 ft N of Lyons St
S
6
7
5/27/2004
6/13/2004
333
50
Y
Y
Carver Street/Chicopee Street
311 Chicopee Street/1000 ft N of Burke Ln
W
S
8
6/17/2004
147
Y
311 Chicopee Street/1500 ft N of Burke Ln
S
9
6/26/2004
1143
Y
24 Carver Street/36 ft N of Carver St
23 Carver Street/1000 ft W of Meadow Glen
Dr.
W
10
7/6/2004
142
Y
11
10/20/2004
2129
Y
325 Chicopee Street/999 ft S of Carver St
E
12
1/5/2005
1123
Y
307 Chicopee Street/500 ft N of Burke Ln
S
13
14
15
16
1/15/2005
3/17/2005
6/15/2005
10/13/2005
1715
1055
225
1020
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carver Street/670 ft E of Chicopee Street
37 Carver St100 ft W of Meadow Glen Dr.
Chicopee Street/150 ft N of Carver Street
24 Carver Street/1000 ft S of Chicopee St.
17
10/25/2005
1113
Y
18
19
20
21
10/26/2005
12/13/2005
4/29/2006
5/24/2006
421
2233
2000
537
22
5/28/2006
23
24
25
26
8/15/2006
10/16/2006
11/2/2006
12/1/2006
W
Curve
(Y / N)
Y
N
WEATHER 1
Snow
Clear
Vehicle
Y
Clear
Dog
Utility Pole
Support Wire
Stop Sign
Trees
Mailbox/
Utility Pole
Tree
N
Clear
Object Struck
Mailbox
NA
Trees
WEATHER 2
Snow
Blowing
Sand/Snow
ROAD
SURFACE
TYPE
Snow
Snow
Snow
Dry
Blowing
Sand/Snow
Y
Clear
N
N
Unknown
Clear
Unknown
Dry
Y
Clear
Dry
N
Cloudy
Y
Rain
N
Clear
Snow
Wet
Fog, Smoke,
Smog
Wet
N
Cloudy
E
E
N
S
Mailbox/Utility
Pole?
Dirt
Mound/Trees
Deer
Tree
Tree
NA
N
N
Y
Y
Clear
Cloudy
Clear
Cloudy
Carver Street/Meadow Glen Dr.
W
M.E. Pole
Y
Rain
Y
Y
Y
Y
Carver Street/Meadow Glen Drive
Carver Street/Meadow Glen Dr.
39 Carver Street/128 ft W of Chicopee St
25 Carver Street/200 ft E of Chicopee St
S
S
E/W
E
Y
Y
Y
Y
Rain
Clear
Clear
Clear
241
Y
334 Chicopee Street/20 ft N of Carver St
N
Y
Clear
Dry
950
2346
814
2118
Y
Y
Y
Y
24 Carver Street/ 400 ft E of Taylor Street
336 Chicopee Street/220 ft N of Carver St
34 Carver Street/1000 ft N of Taylor Street
301 Chicopee Street/1500 ft S of Burke Ln
W
N
N
N
Utility Pole
Utility Pole
Vehicles
Mailbox
Mailbox/Shrub/
Clothes Line
Mailbox/Rock
Tree
Sign/Tree
Trees?
Y
N
Y
Y
Cloudy
Clear
Cloudy
Cloudy
Wet
Dry
Wet
Wet
Clear
Snow
Snow
Rain
Severe
Crosswinds
Cloudy
Rain
Snow
Dry
Snow
Dry
Wet
Wet
Wet
Dry
Dry
Dry
Page 16
CRASH
No.
1
BRIEF SUMMARY/NARRATIVE
•
Vehicle fish tailed due to slippery road conditions, crossed over oncoming lane and hit a mailbox.
2
•
Vehicle slid on snow/ice and overturned
3
•
Vehicle skid on the snow covered roadway and hit vehicle in the oncoming lane.
4
•
Vehicle hit a dog that was crossing the road
5
•
Operator swerved to avoid a collision with another car & in doing so, the vehicle went off the roadway and hit the support wire for a utility pole.
6
•
Vehicle was headed down street and hit the street sign.
7
•
Vehicle was traveling at high rate of speed, ran off the road, operator overcorrected and crossed over oncoming lane, and then hit more trees.
8
•
Vehicle ran off road and hit mailbox and utility pole. Vehicle then went airborne (overturning 3 times) and landed on the roof.
9
•
Vehicle skid on wet roadway, went off road and hit tree
10
•
Operator lost control of vehicle, crossed the center line, and came into 2 trees on opposite side of road.
11
•
Vehicle crossed the center line and hit a mailbox and possibly a utility pole
12
•
Operator lost control of vehicle due to snowy roadway and spun out across roadway
13
•
Vehicle collided with deer that came out of forest and ran into the road.
14
•
Vehicle skid on the slippery roadway and hit a tree.
15
•
Operator fell asleep at the wheel. Vehicle drifted off the roadway and hit a tree.
16
•
Vehicle lost control going around curve and skid across lawn.
17
•
Operator lost control of the vehicle and struck M.E. Pole
18
•
Operator lost control after curve due to weather conditions & struck utility pole.
19
•
Vehicle struck the center lines and struck utility pole.
20
•
Motorcycle crossed over center line and hit 2 vehicles.
21
•
Vehicle hit mailbox on side of road.
22
•
Vehicle veered off roadway, hit mailbox, shrub, and clothes line.
23
•
Tail end of vehicle slid and operator over corrected for this. Vehicle crossed over the oncoming lane of traffic and hit a mailbox & a rock.
24
•
Operator lost control of vehicle, skid off the roadway and hit a tree.
25
•
•
Vehicle veered off roadway, hit a sign, and then a tree.
Tail end of vehicle slid and operator attempted to regain control of the vehicle, however he caused the vehicle to spin out.. Vehicle slid of the road
into an embankment where it rested against 2 trees.
26
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
GEOMETRIC DESIGN
Issue
Comment
A. Speed – (Design Speed; Speed Limit & Zoning; Sight Distance; Overtaking
Are there speed-related issues along the corridor?
Please consider the following elements:
• Horizontal and vertical alignment;
• Posted and advisory speeds
• Driver compliance with speed limits
• Approximate sight distance
• Safety passing opportunities
B. Road alignment and cross section
With respect to the roadway alignment and crosssection please consider the appropriateness of the
following elements:
• Functional class (Urban Principal Arterial)
• Delineation of alignment;
• Widths (lanes, shoulders, medians);
• Sight distance for access points;
• Cross-slopes
• Curbs and gutters
Drainage features
C. Intersections
For intersections along the corridor please consider all
potential safety issues. Some specific considerations
should include the following:
• Intersections fit alignment (i.e. curvature)
• Traffic control devices’’ alert motorists as
necessary
• Sight distance and sight lines seem appropriate
• Vehicles can safely slow/stop for turns
• Conflict point management
• Adequate spacing for various vehicle types
Capacity problems that result in safety problems
D. Auxiliary lanes
• Do auxiliary lanes appear to be adequate?
• Could the taper locations and alignments be
causing safety deficiencies?
• Are should widths at merges causing safety
deficiencies?
Page 26
E. Clear zones and crash barriers
For the roadside the major considerations are clear
zone issues and crash barriers. Consider the following:
• Do there appear to be clear zones issues?
⎯ Are hazards located too close the road?
⎯ Are side slopes acceptable?
• Are suitable crash barriers (i.e, guard rails,
curbs, etc.) appropriate for minimizing crash
severity?
• Barrier features: end treatments, visibility, etc.
F. Bridges and culverts – (if necessary)
Are there specific issues related to bridges and culverts
that may result in safety concerns?
G. Pavement – (Defects, Skid Resistance, and Flooding)
• Is the pavement free of defects including
excessive roughness or rutting, potholes, loose
material, edge drop-offs, etc.) that could result
in safety problems (for example, loss of
steering control)?
• Does the pavement appear to have adequate
skid resistance, particularly on curves, step
grades and approaches to intersections?
• Is the pavement free of areas where flooding or
sheet flow of water could contribute to safety
problems?
• In general, is the pavement quality sufficient
for safe travel of heavy and oversized vehicles?
H. Lighting (Lighting and Glare)
It is important to consider to the impacts of lighting.
Some specifics include the following:
Is lighting required and, if so, has it been
adequately provided?
Are there glare issues resulting from headlights
during night time operations or from sunlight?
Page 27
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
Issue
Comment
I. Signs
Signage is a critical element in providing a safe
roadway environment. Please consider the following:
• Are all current signs visible (consider both
night and day)? Are they conspicuous and
clear? Are the correct signs used for each
situation?
• Does the retroreflectivity or illumination appear
satisfactory?
• Are there any concerns regarding sign
supports?
J. Traffic signals
Although the focus of this RSA are lane departures,
this does present an opportunity for us to consider any
traffic signals. Specifically:
• If present, do the traffic signals appear to be
designed, installed, and operating correctly?
• Is the controller located in a safe position?
(where it is unlikely to be hit, but maintenance
access is safe)
• Is there adequate sight distance to the ends of
possible vehicle queues?
K. Marking and delineation
• Is the line marking and delineation:
⎯ appropriate for the function of the road?
⎯ consistent along the route?
⎯ likely to be effective under all expected
conditions? (day, night, wet, dry, fog, rising
and setting sun, oncoming headlights, etc.)
• Are centerlines, edgelines, and lane lines
provided? If not, do drivers have adequate
guidance?
Page 28
ROADWAY ACTIVITY
Issue
With respect to roadway activity please consider safety
elements related to the following:
• Pedestrians
• Bicycles
• Public transportation vehicles and riders
• Emergency vehicles
• Commercial vehicles
• Slow moving vehicles
Comment
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Issue
Comment
Weather & Animals
From an environmental perspective it is important to
consider any potential impacts. Most notably is likely
to be the impacts of weather or animals, including:
• Possible effects of rain, fog, snow, ice, wind on
design features.
• Has snow fall accumulation been considered in
the design (storage, sight distance around
snowbanks, etc.)?
• Are there any known animal travel/migration
routes in surrounding areas which could affect
design?
Page 29